Page 1

Date: 2 August 2009

Complaint Regarding the Government’s Long-Standing Neglect

of the Urgent Local Educational Needs of Residents of Mui Wo and Southern Lantau
– also its Violation of Democratic, Accountable and Transparent Due Process

We, the South Lantau Education Concern Group, write to complain about the long-standing neglect of the
urgent local educational needs of the residents of Mui Wo and South Lantau.

1.1.Regretfully, this has been revealed by the unfortunate clash with the relocation of the Christian
Zheng Sheng College (ZS). This clash is the direct result of a series of violations, by the
government, of the due process which has supposedly been established for the bidding process
for a vacant school premises (Appendix 1: List of events).

1.2.We maintain that the needs of both ZS and our local community are equally legitimate and
urgent, and that the government is responsible for solving both problems without delay, and
should not attempt to address one at the expense of the other.

1.3.We plead with you, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR Government, to make an objective
assessment of our urgent educational needs.

2. Four Pressing Educational Needs Facing Mui Wo and Southern Lantau

The New Territories Heung Yee Kuk Southern District Secondary School (SDSS) is the one and only
properly equipped school in the whole of Mui Wo and Southern Lantau. Way before its closure in
September 2007, concerted efforts by our residents were made to re-invigorate and save the school
(Appendix 2). As early as April 2006, a survey and a thorough analysis were conducted and on this basis a
proposal was sent to the former Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) (see Appendix 3a). Since then,
four proposals - revised and resubmitted by various educational organizations – have reached the offices
of the EMB. Currently, we are conducting a follow-up survey (Appendix 4). Initial data support the 2006
findings in many ways. To reiterate, our needs are:

2.1.Secondary education provision for a growing population: According to the ‘principle of vicinity’
emphasized by the Education Bureau, local provision of secondary education is a basic social
 Page 2

entitlement of all residents. For the Mui Wo and Southern Lantau district, this entitlement is overdue
since the closure of SDSS in 2007. This need is accentuated as the population of our district is
increasing and is projected to reach 17,000 by 20161. Some residential land in Cheung Sha has
already been auctioned and more development plans are underway. This will increase the school age
population further. The demographic characteristics of our community have moved towards young
professional families, with parents willing to serve as volunteers in school. This indicates great asset
for a good education provision in the vicinity should the language issue be resolved.

2.2.Alleviation of hardships for students and families: Large numbers of Lantau children have to rise at
dawn for the 6:20 am ferry to Central. They then have to continue by bus to their schools, coming
back with rounded shoulders doing homework on the ferry, too exhausted even to think about extra-
curricular activities, let alone quality family life! Travel expenses can cost over $60 per student per
day, straining finances tremendously for low income families.2 Travelling to/from schools in Tung
Chung and Tai O is not as straight forward as it seems, often due to the great distance from
home/school to bus stations (and ferries). The rural mountainous ride is trying and the road conditions
can be extremely poor in bad weather. Our students often encounter problems getting home after
extra-curricular activities as they will have missed the scheduled school bus (Appendix 5).

2.3.Education provision for non-Chinese speaking students: Expatriate families in our community
(mainly Westerners and Filipinos) make up approximately 1/3 of the total population3. Some of them
would much prefer local education had they a choice for an English-medium instruction (EMI) for
their children. They favour the local education system for social integration, proximity, affordability
as much as commitment to the local community. Meanwhile, we have already witnessed a good
proportion of expatriate children attending local primary schools. A great majority of them are
struggling within a Chinese-medium instruction (CMI) environment. This has caused frustration in
both students and teachers, and classroom management becomes an issue. Despite additional
resources to fortify language familiarity through remedial classes and teacher assistants, the results
remain unsatisfactory. To maintain quality education for both Chinese-speaking and non-Chinese-
speaking children, two parallel CMI and EMI classes have been proposed. A healthy academic
1
Planning Department/Planning Studies/Studies Completed/South West New Territories Development Strategy
Review/para 4.4.4.7.; http://www.pland.gov.hk/p_study/comp_s/swnt/final-report/final-report.htm
2
The travel subsidy available appears to be based on the cost of the 55-minute to one-hour-15-minute slow ferry.
As intervals between slow ferries vary between 40 minutes to 2 hours during the day, very often the 30-minute fast
ferry is the only option. The morning rush to school also means that the 6:20 fast ferry is the only option.
3
Student intake of the three kindergartens in Mui Wo shows that1/3 of the 62 children ready to go into Primary
One next year (2009-2010) are non-Chinese speaking. This figure does not include children attending kindergartens
outside Mui Wo due to the lack of full-day services locally.
 Page 3

development is essential for children’s long-term personal development. As a growing number of

expatriate families are turning to local education for social inclusion, their needs can no longer be
ignored by the government.

2.4.Relocation of Mui Wo (primary) School (MWS): Our primary school, located in a 70-year-old
building, urgently needs to be relocated for a better learning environment and an expanding student
population (158 students with a substantial waiting list). The school is confined to a very basic of 6
classrooms, a small music room, a computer room, and 3 toilet units. There is no space for a library,
activity rooms or an all-weather assembly hall. The plan for extension of the original premises has
been rejected twice by the Education Bureau due to unclear ownership of the lease. The former EMB
indeed advised the relocation of the school.

3. Proposed Solutions to the Problems Identified above

3.1. Our community have deliberated three possible alternatives to solve the above problems:
A. Relocation of Mui Wo (Primary) School to SDSS and re-considering existing proposals for
secondary education provision: The relocation of our Mui Wo (Primary) School to the vacated
SDSS will enable the School to expand and accommodate extra classes for English-medium of
instruction at each level. The expanded school will be able to absorb primary students who, due to
the previous lack of available places locally, have been allocated to Tai O, Tung Chung and Hong
Kong Island. Concurrently, secondary education provision can be arranged by re-considering the
existing proposals and selecting the one which best fits with the MWS relocation. A conservative
calculation of student numbers at the re-opening of the conglomerate school stands at full
capacity is 750 (see Table below).
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Total
Classes
1st Year 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 15
2nd Year 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 18
rd
3 Year 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 21
4th Year 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 24
5th Year 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 27
th
6 Year 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 30
B. Relocation of Mui Wo (Primary) School to SDSS, and provision of secondary education under
different administration: This is similar to Alternative A. The only difference is that secondary
education will also be provided by the same organization which runs Mui Wo (primary) School.
The secondary section will however be taught by a different team of teachers and managed under
 Page 4

a different administration with secondary experience. Student numbers will be the same as
Alternative A.

C. Relocation of Mui Wo (Primary) School to a new site for expansion and building a new
secondary school with open bidding: This will mean looking for two appropriate sites for two
separate schools. The MWS will then be able to expand to accommodate one extra EMI class for
each level. The secondary school will be able to cater to 3 classes of 61 students at each level
with at least 1 EMI class. Not only is this alternative time-consuming (it would take at least 4 ½
years to build a new school according to EDB’s estimation), it is also much more costly.

3.2 The EDB’s figures are grossly misleading

1. The EDB’s figures which only include existing P.6 students (about 50 children) in the two local
schools (Mui Wo and Pui O) are grossly misleading and only represent yet another example of our
needs falling on deaf ears. We do not just demand a secondary school. We have all along requested a
through-train school from Primary One to Secondary Six with 3 classes at each level at the re-opened
SDSS, of which 1 English-medium class will be offered at all levels. At full operation, there is a
projection of approximately 800 students in this specially designed school. This projection is
supported by i) existing student populations (Appendix 6); ii) the current study (Appendix 4); and iii)
official projection of the population rise to 17,000 by 2016 (see Footnote 2 and statistics from the
2006 by-census4). With such a population projection, it is astonishing that we don’t today have a
properly equipped school functioning in the district!

3.2.2. Moreover, the EDB’s figure of 50 does not include i) students who have been sent far away from
home due to lack of choice locally in the first place; ii) non-Chinese speaking children from a local
international primary school in which a good proportion of parents have demanded for English-
medium education in the local system; iii) students from nearby Peng Chau (15-minute ferry ride to
Mui Wo) who used to be in our catchment area and now have to put up with the same long distance
travelling as many Mui Wo children.

3.2.3. EDB’s figures showing a decline in student numbers before the closure of SDSS does not represent
the ethnic and school age population we are facing now. The figure can only reflect the woeful
mismanagement caused by the frequent change of principals (13 in 25 years)! An equally frequent
change of government officials handling Island District education matters (every 1 to 2 years) has

4
Also refer to 2006 By-census: http://www.bycensus2006.gov.hk/en/data/data3/statistical_tables/index.htm#C3
 Page 5

also led to the incoherence and misunderstanding of unique problems facing schools in the Island
communities. A mismanaged school festered with the news of its closure since 2002 had deterred
local parents from sending their children to the SDSS. We contest that the ‘lack of demand for SDSS’
is a result of negligence and mishandling by the government instead of ‘lack of genuine local needs’.

3.3. A small secondary school alone offers limited help

Some politicians have suggested building a new small secondary school for Mui Wo. This suggestion
clearly cannot deal with Points 1 & 4 above (the needs of a growing population of non-Chinese
primary children and the relocation of MWS). As a purpose-built school, SDSS is the only option
that can cater for the needs identified above in an integrated manner; and is thus superior to isolated,
piecemeal measures in terms of saving time and resources.

3.4.The closure of SDSS has brought about the loss of an important community amenity. The sizeable
assembly hall was used for many large community functions in the past. Its closure has eroded our
collective memory and sense of identity. By contrast, a reopened community school will preserve an
essential and much missed public facility.

3.5.The three alternatives outlined above serve as basic ideas for further deliberation. Practical solutions
or policies suggestions will be much appreciated.

4. The government should not have violated due process in supporting Zeng Sheng’s relocation
When giving full support to relocate ZS into Mui Wo, the government has failed to demonstrate that due
process was followed: no meeting minutes or reports have been produced to prove that decisions were
taken impartially and in accordance with the law. It is this lack of transparency together with their
disregard for rights of our local children that has so angered Mui Wo citizens. We are profoundly
disappointed by the government’s ‘quick fix’ solution by offering SDSS to ZS, and in the process turning
the Mui Wo community into a scapegoat for its failure in monitoring conditions at ZS and in planning for
long-range solution for youth drug problems.

4.1.In the meeting between the South Lantau Community Education Committee (SLCEC) and the former
EMB on 28 July, 2006, the ‘EMB confirmed that the [SDSS] premises would be maintained for
educational purposes only.’ (Meeting minutes, para 8.5, p.3 – Appendix 3b)
 Page 6

4.2.The principal of Mui Wo School also received a letter from the EMB in January 2007 recognizing
their written request and encouraging them to look forward to open bidding for the SDSS premises.
We have learned that more than ten proposals were submitted for the use the SDSS premises, two of
which were resubmissions from MWS and the Methodist Church (a resubmission based on the
revision of the SLCEC’s proposal).

4.3.As we were patiently waiting for feedback and open bidding, the ‘rumour’ that the SDSS premises
had been designated for ZS came as a profound shock just recently (end of May).

4.4.Unfortunately the media reported simply an ‘empty school’ as though the matter was a straight-
forward case of an unused building. We have been criticized for being ‘NIMBY’ as our strong desire
for the school was apparently ‘unheard of’ until ZS’s request for relocation to SDSS. This was a
travesty of the facts.

4.5.All our efforts since 2004 have been disregarded because we believed mistakenly that due and
accountable process would be followed. The overly skewed and emotive reporting of our residents’
reactions by the media has completely ignored the facts we have presented.

4.6.The continuous media onslaught and ‘censorship’ by the local Chinese newspapers of our written
replies based on evidence has caused biased opinion from the general public. Our community has
been deeply wounded ever since.

5. Zheng Sheng’s need for relocation and our’s for educational are equally legitimate and urgent;
both should be addressed without delay, not one at the expense of the other
Like all Hong Kong people, Mui Wo residents fully support Zheng Sheng’s relocation. This however
should not override our basic entitlement to the provision of local education which is long overdue.

5.1.We also fail to understand why ZS cannot be re-located to an area which is not short of
properly equipped schools.

5.2. It is not clear to us why the problem of the drug rehabilitation school failed to surface for so many
years, and yet suddenly, within a couple of weeks, the school's relocation have been presented by the
 Page 7

concerned government bureaux and their senior officials as a DONE DEAL. What manipulation has
taken place? What underlying personal connections are involved?

5.3.Local consultation has been a farce. The very first consultation document in the form of a proposal
by ZS was not submitted to the Island District Council until 10 days before the Council meeting on 15
June 2009!

5.4. During the Island District Council meeting on 15 June, many questions were raised and the chairman
concluded that more information was required from ZS and its mediating body, the Narcotics
Division of the Security Bureau (Appendix 8). Whilst the much belated consultation process is on-
going, the Heung Yee Kuk, a non-government body, has volunteered to help look for alternative sites.

5.5. We were therefore utterly perplexed when government officials warned Mui Wo residents to be
prepared to accept that if all other sites are deemed unsuitable, ZS will take over SDSS. We have the
following queries:

5.5.1. Shouldn’t the government be the active agent in searching for suitable sites for ZS, instead of
relying on a non-government body, such as Heung Yee Kuk? Can the government produce criteria
for the site selection or evidence that any selection has taken place?
5.5.2. Has the EDB confirmed that ZS is a school and not a rehabilitation facility? If ZS is not a school,
why does it override other proposals which have been rightly made for educational purposes that
are equally pressing? (see also para 4.1. above)
5.5.3. Is this not a further breach of due process?

5.6. We plead with you not to seek to solve problems in an undemocratic way.

6. Expected Outcomes of the Current Complaint

6.1.We request you to understand our pressing local educational needs; and to ensure that the
government will address these needs, without further delay, through action plans and concrete
timetables.

6.2.We urge you to investigate if due process has been violated in the request of the Christian Zheng
Sheng College for relocation to SDSS.
 Page 8

6.3.We insist that the government disclose the reason why Zheng Sheng College cannot be re-
located to an area which is not short of properly equipped schools; and to provide full details as
requested by the Island District Council (refer to 5.4. above)

Thank you for your kind attention.

Yours sincerely,
South Lantau Education Concern Group

List of Affiliates:
Living Islands Movement
Mui Wo School Parent-Teacher Association
New Territories Heung Yee Kuk Southern District Secondary School Alumni Association
Islands Youth Association
Island District Councillor Wong Fuk-kan
Lick Hang Kindergarten
Hong Kong Outlying Islands Women's Association Ltd
New Territories Association Societies (Island District Committee)
Mui Wo Rural Committee
South Lantao Rural Committee
Leafy International Kindergarten
Ark-Eden

List of Appendices (to be submitted at a later date):

Appendix 1: List of events pertaining to the current complaint
Appendix 2: Background information on SDSS
Appendix 3a: Proposal for the use of SDSS prepared by the South Lantau Community
Education Committee (SLCEC), July 2006
Appendix 3b: Minutes of the meeting between the EMB and the SLCEC, 28 July 2006
Appendix 4: Follow-up survey conducted in July 2009: results and analysis
Appendix 5: Transport information from Mui Wo to various locations
Appendix 6: Table showing current student populations in primary schools in Mui Wo,
Southern Lantau and Peng Chau
Appendix 7: Excerpts of the Island District Council Meeting on 15 June 2009 on the
questions raised and additional information required regarding the relocation of
Christian Zheng Sheng College to SDSS.